The downtown vacancy problem, and its lack of sustained vibrancy, interests me all the more because it has stumped us all. Most of us like to solve problems, as its an important part of being human. And to solve a somewhat difficult problem is uplifting to the spirit.
The revitalization problem! It amazing that for so many years, we have failed. Are those who "work" on this problem, and seek to bring vibrancy, simply not up to the job? Apparently. And apparently those who have failed includes us all, from us casual posters to the various members of the several groups charged with solving the problem, and to the various mayors and those in the city council - failure is us.
Is it possible to achieve vibrancy? The fact of our continuing failure over many years allows me to wonder if vibrancy could have been achieved; that is, was it possible during those years, is it possible now, and will it be possible during the next several years.
Surely it is possible. And if we agree that it is possible, then we might ask about the "probability" of success given a normal level of resources and quality of effort applied to the project. After all, if we were given four billion dollars to apply to the project, we surely would succeed.
What of the idea of "normal level of resources and quality of effort", and its effect on the probability of success? As there are increases in our resources and in the quality of effort, then the probability of success will increase and, within a reasonable span of time we would achieve success. And as we see decreases or mediocrity in these attributes, then failure will continue to exist.
Although the economy is currently very bad, so that it's state is sufficient to prevent good progress in revitalization, it has not been consistently so over the years, so one cannot comfortably place the blame for failure on the economy. Surely somewhere in recent years the economy was good enough to support any viable and effective effort to bring vibrancy into the city center, including businesses, retail, residents, and cultural realities.
Obviously we failed during those good economic times to make the right decisions, to do the right things, to jump at the opportunities - to achieve sustained vibrancy. Are we going to be ready to succeed during the next good economy? Are we going to have the ability to make the right decisions? So far I've seen nothing to indicate that we will be ready. My gut says that we still don't get it.
I have mentioned the words "we" and "us" above, as if any one person was individually accountable, and even, as individuals, capable of engaging in a forceful way the project of revitalization. The very fact that we have very intelligent and dedicated individuals, paid and volunteering, who have been targeted, and continue to be targeted, as being failures, indicates to me that there is something fundamentally wrong in our scenario of revitalization, and it has to do with the structure or the design of the machine of which we are all a part. It has to do not only with the quality of leadership, but more importantly, with the debilitating effects of an unworkable design or structure of the organizational machine involved in attempting to revitalize our city center. Any poorly designed machine or vehicle cannot reach its destination, as its flaws, although hidden from view, are formidable as causes of failure.
I will stop for now, as it is time for my nightly beer, but I will continue. But, meanwhile, any criticism or comments would be appreciated.
cheap land in other areas of the city and endless free to anyone building permits are the two reasons why our downtown is empty...our leaders have allowed building anywhere by anyone for any reason reguardless of what it's going to do to the city as a whole...there has been no goals and no forsight into development....rich developers have been given a free pass on everything and now our downtown is empty....stop the free building permits and maybe our downtown will come back...in the next 20 years maybe?
Quote from: Garden guy on July 29, 2011, 06:37:00 AM
cheap land in other areas of the city and endless free to anyone building permits are the two reasons why our downtown is empty...our leaders have allowed building anywhere by anyone for any reason regardless of what it's going to do to the city as a whole...there has been no goals and no forsight into development....rich developers have been given a free pass on everything and now our downtown is empty....stop the free building permits and maybe our downtown will come back...in the next 20 years maybe?
Good observation. However, we have, and with good cause, entered millions of posts discussing the "consequences" of our failures, of having a broken machine. We have also posted millions, with good cause, about our destination - what we want to achieve in revitalization. However, if we relate our political and committee organizational structures to that of a large complex vehicle that is attempting to get to a destination, and in our case it would be sustained vibrancy, then we might acknowledge that the machine has fatal design flaws, and defective parts and subassemblies, preventing it from traveling to its destination.
If the machine has fundamental design errors, and non-functioning parts, all the drivers (mayors) elected to drive the machine can only fail; all the mechanics (council members) assigned to tune the machine can only fail; and all the those giving directions to its destination, while pointing out the bumps (the rest of us), can only fail.
The path toward revitalization will require some type of strong leadership, which can exist only if the machine design and assembly is proper; thereby allowing efficient movement toward the destination. The mayor cannot lead effectively unless the structure of the machine is correct, allowing efficient movement to the destination of a vibrant city.
Democratic structures, if of good design, with all parts working together, can be good vehicles or machines, ready to be driven by good leadership, and even by a mayor who can drive only reasonably well. However, if the machine is not of good design, and is set with poor construction, even an excellent and wise mayor will fail to take the machine to the desired destination.
The ideal condition, which would allow good progress toward vibrancy, would be to have a single revitalization Czar. We could call him or her the Vibrancy Czar, or Vibzcar. Look at the example of Peter the Great in the Russia of the early 18th century. This Czar, by having total power over all and everything, built at the loss of many lives, the city of St. Petersburg; and the city was built over marshlands, with the technology of the early 18th century.
What I'm trying to say is that we can, of necessity of course, talk for years about what has happened, about what is wrong with the city, about what we must achieve, and what we must make right, but we have done this for several years, and we've not traveled much closer to our destination of a revitalized city center. Something fundamental, formidable, and hidden from view, is preventing our progress.
The movement of the machine or vehicle I've mentioned above is really the "action" part of any scenario of getting from where one is to where one wants to go. At some point, any entity (organization, government, city), if its goal is to get from "A" to "B", must be of such construction so it can "act" or "move" in the direction to which all have agreed it must move.
A single individual can move successfully to its destination, even with obstructions, simply because evolution has, by its natural and quite effective design department, caused the individual to have the wonderfully efficient Czar type of government; that is, a single brain. However, on any journey to be taken by hundreds or thousands of individuals, as in the case of our journey to revitalize, each having an autonomous brain affected by the emotions and attributes of self interest, of incompetence, of indecision, of greed, of the desire for power; then, is anyone amazed at our failure to reach our destination of vibrancy?
I must get to work, but I welcome any comments or criticism.
Well I guess a good machine is not built as a good machine, but through improvements through history and progress becomes a good machine. The idea of a supermayor riding into town with a council asleep at the wheel will not help/ or as I see it. I do believe that a supermayor or tzar would be great in the right condition, but can be a little more than good for the DT if nobody is on board. I feel the city leaders are fragmented to hell and when somebody does come and get everyone back together they leave office and we start all over again. I guess my point is that we need to have a schematic or plan and have everyone on board and want to make this happen- maybe such as the mobility plan. A plan that will not be abandoned, but improved upon and continue. I am sure a lot of the leaders pertaining to the DT really don't care if there is success, but unless they all do believe then nothing is going to happen. I do think Lake's ideas of nitching is truly what is needed. If we could say start with Chamblins and make sure we do not jump a half mile to go for the next big project, but try and grow out of a certain district it will do something. Eventually a small district will become a bigger district until we reach the DT. Having a master project like the TC out in Lavilla is great, but it does not help the immediate district that is thriving in DT. Well I guess after my rant....everyone has to be on board and truly believing that this could and will happen and a solid plan cannot be left to rot when the next mayor or council comes to power.
Ron,
Great thread by the way!
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on July 29, 2011, 10:11:09 AM
Well I guess a good machine is not built as a good machine, but through improvements through history and progress becomes a good machine. The idea of a supermayor riding into town with a council asleep at the wheel will not help/ or as I see it. I do believe that a supermayor or tzar would be great in the right condition, but can be a little more than good for the DT if nobody is on board. I feel the city leaders are fragmented to hell and when somebody does come and get everyone back together they leave office and we start all over again. I guess my point is that we need to have a schematic or plan and have everyone on board and want to make this happen- maybe such as the mobility plan. A plan that will not be abandoned, but improved upon and continue. I am sure a lot of the leaders pertaining to the DT really don't care if there is success, but unless they all do believe then nothing is going to happen. I do think Lake's ideas of nitching is truly what is needed. If we could say start with Chamblins and make sure we do not jump a half mile to go for the next big project, but try and grow out of a certain district it will do something. Eventually a small district will become a bigger district until we reach the DT. Having a master project like the TC out in Lavilla is great, but it does not help the immediate district that is thriving in DT. Well I guess after my rant....everyone has to be on board and truly believing that this could and will happen and a solid plan cannot be left to rot when the next mayor or council comes to power.
I agree that the quality of a governmental machine, or any vehicle set to accomplish some objective, will evolve and change. My observation however is to point out that the current condition of our vehicle has, under the pressure of years of haphazard evolution and manipulations, and from a lack of guidance from responsible leadership, evolved to a condition of impotence, or at least poor organization, and therefore the machine cannot respond productively to the control of even a supermayor. And as far as being on board, I think that there are hundreds who “are on board†the mayor driven machine, but because it is flawed with defective design and organization, there is little progress toward our destination of sustained vibrancy, in spite of all the efforts of many dedicated individuals from the city council down to us posters.
In other words, we must finally look at the fundamental structure of our local governmental machine, its working parts, and how they are assembled, so that we might change it to allow movement toward our objective; so that "positive action" emerges from the well meaning efforts of all those dedicated individuals who strive to achieve sustained vibrancy in our city core. Failure to do so will only perpetuate the our situation of a stalled journey.
Must return to work again. Any comments or criticism appreciated.
I wonder if the metaphor of the vehicle is the best one. The government ultimately does not have direct control over most of the elements that would create a vibrant downtown - shops, restaurants, people walking the sidewalks.
Not to get too earth-mothery, but maybe we should think of downtown more like a farm. We have a sense of what we'd like to see as a successful downtown. We can control the inputs - seeds, fertilizer, water, etc. - but in the end we don't make the plants grow. If they're not growing the way we like, we need to ask if we've put in the right inputs. If we're being affected by outside factors (e.g. drought or insects) then we need to come up with an appropriate response (e.g. irrigation or pesticide).
Many of our inputs for downtown are good - there is still a sizable employment base, buildings with character, and many people who want downtown to succeed. But many are either not helpful or actively hostile - sign codes, game-day policies, etc.
+1,000
I do believe in media. I see some of these politicians as corrupt. I guess I don't mean that in the traditional sense, but as a few who would prefer the benefit of themselves (maybe for money) than for the greatest populous. To me these people should not be politicians, but somehow end up in this spot. I guess in the farm analogy- when things start to grow/ maybe not perfect, but begin to grow they pluck the growings in the middle of the night and throw them in the St. Johns. I think the city or someone needs to isolate who these people are. I hear this and that on here about certain individuals, but I am not even sure if I saw a list of the council etc who these dip shits are. Maybe we need a dip shit list. Not sure what this would do though, but it would be a start.
Quote from: lowlyplanner on July 29, 2011, 12:16:09 PM
I wonder if the metaphor of the vehicle is the best one. The government ultimately does not have direct control over most of the elements that would create a vibrant downtown - shops, restaurants, people walking the sidewalks.
Not to get too earth-mothery, but maybe we should think of downtown more like a farm. We have a sense of what we'd like to see as a successful downtown. We can control the inputs - seeds, fertilizer, water, etc. - but in the end we don't make the plants grow. If they're not growing the way we like, we need to ask if we've put in the right inputs. If we're being affected by outside factors (e.g. drought or insects) then we need to come up with an appropriate response (e.g. irrigation or pesticide).
Many of our inputs for downtown are good - there is still a sizable employment base, buildings with character, and many people who want downtown to succeed. But many are either not helpful or actively hostile - sign codes, game-day policies, etc.
I like the farm metaphor also, as in some respects it is more illustrative of the issue than the machine. But the metaphor is not really important. The seeds and fertilizer you speak of is actually the decisions and incentives coming from an effective city government. Of course, the government has little direct control over the attributes that ultimately exist in a vibrant downtown. But it does have control over policies and decisions that bring about conditions allowing these attributes to emerge and continue. Whereas these attributes make up the essence of a vibrant core, it follows that they are the “consequences†of a city core that has achieved, or is on the cusp of achieving, the threshold or momentum of activity that automatically encourages growth, resulting in sustained vibrancy.
Again, my focus is on the mechanism of achieving action, and the quality of it. Without an effective mechanism, vehicle, or machine, there can be little positive action toward a desired destination. As for the ideal of a Vibrancy Dictator, or a Vibrancy Czar (VibCzar), of course, it would be unrealistic to dwell too much on this ideal. However, we should use this ideal as a model toward which we can strive as we shape a governmental structure that can bring the required consensus and action for success in revitalization. In other words, we seem to have endured over recent years, a governmental machine consisting of scattered entities or groups, which can only achieve mediocre goals independently, and nothing of significance as a whole, such as sustained core vibrancy, simply because they are positioned in opposition to each other, or at least are operating in scattered directions, none resulting in significant gains toward our ultimate goal of vibrancy.
Regarding the ability of a mayor to approach the ideal of being a Czar or Dictator, thus approaching the “Peter the Great†type of effectiveness in building a city, it may be that the greatest asset the mayor has allowing him or her to approach the effectiveness of a dictator is the use of the position of the mayor to educate, to persuade, to entice, to force by whatever legal means, all entities in the direction of revitalization â€" in short, to be a strong leader with vision, and the determination to realize the vision, without concern for reelection, without bending to special interests.
Back to work again.
the farm metaphor is quite ironic, seeing how all the land of southpoint, gateparkway and the flagler office parks were all originally zoned for agriculture. The city of jax happily rezoned those tracts of land for the developer, so they could build the office parks and shopping centers that are choking out our downtown.
One might ask the question as to whether or not it was possible, during the past twenty years, for any group or entity to bring our city core to a condition of vibrancy. If the answer is yes, then one might ask whether or not any group or entity was ever charged with the responsibility to do so. If the answer is yes, then one might ask what group or entity was given this responsibility. If we’ve agreed that it was possible, and that an entity was charged with the task, but that it failed, then we might ask why it failed.
Surely the economy is not the fault, as there have been periods when it was good. Surely it was not the mayor, as we’ve had several. Could failure have been due to a lack of ideas available to the entity charged with the task? Or was it problem simply that the entity did not have the power to implement the ideas into action?
Again, we might imagine the ideal of a Vibrancy Czar, one with the power to override everyone and anything that offers opposition to making progress on the road to revitalization. The Czar could neutralize or bypass those individuals, groups, or entities that have in the past caused opposition for reasons of excessive personal greed, indifference, inertial obstinacy, or incompetence: pushing forward, much as did Peter the Great when he built the great city of St. Petersburg out of the swamplands.
But then, what if it is impossible for revitalization to be achieved? Of course, it is possible. But somewhere between the ideas of it being possible and impossible, is the level of probability that revitalization can be achieved; that is, given a reasonable amount of effort and assets available for action that would result in a successful revitalization.
Being an optimist, the probability of success is high in my opinion, but only if an organizational structure is formed that can select the best ideas and recommendations already available; that can be creative in the area of incentives, that can not only take opportunities but also make them; and only if within that structure, there exists the very important component that has the power and force to make things happen â€" to bring strong action. All the ideas in the world are of little use unless one has the power and the freedom to force action.
I am convinced expecting the government to fix the problem in Downtown is a waste of everyone's time. It just isn't going to happen and we need to realize that fact. I have been a proponent of that idea myself for five years and I am convinced now it was a mistake to expect anything from the city. We business owners are on our own. Fact of life. I gave them my ideas and none were ever adopted and I was naive to think something coming from an individual would be listened to seriously. The city leaders have too much on their plates and Downtown has zero political pull. Just 'sayin...
Quote from: marksjax on July 30, 2011, 09:14:03 PM
I am convinced expecting the government to fix the problem in Downtown is a waste of everyone's time. It just isn't going to happen and we need to realize that fact. I have been a proponent of that idea myself for five years and I am convinced now it was a mistake to expect anything from the city. We business owners are on our own. Fact of life. I gave them my ideas and none were ever adopted and I was naive to think something coming from an individual would be listened to seriously. The city leaders have too much on their plates and Downtown has zero political pull. Just 'sayin...
I can understand your position Marksjax, as I too get discouraged and impatient at seeing little action from the city toward what I’ve thought to be worthwhile objectives. And it makes sense to suggest that we cannot expect the city to “fix†the problem of the downtown stagnation, as the city does not have the resources to do so.
However, in my view, we should encourage and demand that the city “enable†revitalization to the maximum of its ability by establishing real and practical incentives, and an environment of freedom, for those individuals who, by way of having a vision, and the funds to realize their vision, strive to engage a city core project with as little opposition or impediments as possible; with as much freedom as possible.
Some projects, because they are difficult, must be worked to the maximum, removing or destroying all obstacles, exploring all avenues, forcing through and past roadblocks. Let’s assume that one has a somewhat difficult project to engage, one that has a multitude of complex, perhaps hidden impediments. One cannot attack all of these problems at once, but must first identify “all†problems right from the start, and new ones as they arrive, even the ones about which one is not sure as to their importance. To move toward completion of the project, one must attack “each†problem, and solve it, destroy it, or move around or past it.
The point is that, with the poor economy, the low foot traffic, the parking issue, etc., any new potential investor, resident, business, or corporate entity, attempting to engage the city core, should not be expected to endure and confront “any†impediments to freedom in the form of absurd restrictions, zoning, or controls from any entity affecting the city core. And the city does have the ability and the power to enable core activity by offering practical incentives, and the freedoms needed by any entity attempting add a solid positive toward vibrancy; in the form of a business, a corporate office, or even a residence.
As just one example, and there are others, affecting the idea of freedom in the core, one can look back only a few days wherein there was talk about the café / bar group wanting to have sidewalk tables on which they could serve alcohol drinks to their customers. There was a comment from an individual who, as I understand it, happens to be a member of the First Baptist Church, and happens to be a member of the city council; and the comment was one that questioned the wisdom of allowing drinks upon the tables because of the close proximity of the churches. There was further comment that we might want the downtown core to be family friendly. Forgive me if my recollections are somewhat off, but the picture is I think there for illustrating a point.
A city, by its nature, is free; or should be free so that it can evolve to its best vibrancy; as there are all types of people within; all ethnic groups, visitors from all over the world, workers, residents, religious people, Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists, Mormons, freethinkers, atheists, those in between, and those who are nothing. A church is, by nature, controlling, although in slight manner, because it demands or asks of its members a set of actions and behaviors acceptable to the doctrines of the church. And this controlling aspect of the church is, in my view, quite acceptable and necessary for its mission.
If we were to accept the necessity of the condition of freedom within our city core; that is, if we are to allow or promote an enabling scenario within which the core can achieve vibrancy; and if we were to accept the necessity of the church to offer a measure of control over its members, and even over its close proximity, then we might ask about the limits of this close proximity. One might ask for example, how many blocks surrounding the First Baptist Church should be under its influence. Surely, the adjacent blocks are within reason. And one might argue that the FBC should have a say extending even over two blocks from its buildings.
This two block limit to influences seems reasonable. Let’s count. To establish a base for measuring, let’s assume the city core as being from the river to State Street, and from Broad to Liberty. This gives about 110 blocks making up the core area. If one were to count the blocks over which the church might have influence; that is, if it were to have influence over the two blocks from its own buildings, one would begin first with the 11 blocks owned by FBC; then add the adjacent 18 blocks, and then the next 18 adjacent blocks, making a total of 47 blocks of acceptable influence. This is 43% of the north bank core area of 110 blocks. I did not count the 8 blocks north of State Street, even though they lie within the two block distance from the church, because it lies outside of the established core area north of State Street.
In any case, at this point in our exercise in argument, if we were to agree on a two-block limit of acceptable influence by the First Baptist Church over our downtown core area, thereby giving it the option to decide who or what might do whatever in that area, then the southern limit of this influence would be Monroe Street. Any further influence, south of Monroe, would mean that the church would exceed the 43% level of influence, perhaps past 50% and onward.
Again, this is only an example of just one scenario that might oppose the ideal of having the maximum freedom, within reason of course, in our city core. Those who might think I am opposing a church might remember that I am only illustrating a possible conflict between the essence of a city, which is freedom, and essence of a church, which involves a measure of control. I respect the church and its objectives. But I also respect the all those in the city who wish to live in freedom; who wish to make decisions based on the best for themselves and their livelihood, and their businesses, and not based on limitations endured because they happen to live or work in an extended and perhaps unreasonable church sphere of influence.
Ask the Russians of the Soviet period about freedom. They had none. And they never achieved what might be called vibrancy, or the good life; because a lack of freedom, whether from an oppressive regime, a disfunctional city government, or a church, has the same affect of stifling creativity and progress toward worthy goals that allow the emergence of the best in our humanity.
Ron,
I agree with you and applaud your continued efforts.
I meant by "fix" that the city is not going to change enough things that will help small business Downtown. Maybe fix is the wrong word. Perhaps 'partner' or 'enable' or 'support' is better for my point.
There are too many layers of bureaucracy in place to get anything accomplished. Meaning someone won't like an idea and when it gets to their desk it gets shot down or watered down to where it isn't the same. Or the city council won't like it.
You almost need a Downtown 'Czar" type of deal that has the power to override city council, city department managers & the JTA.
The Mayor could do some of that with the bully pulpit. And maybe we can get some things done with Don Shea. But the big Haskell developed buildings, parking garages and long range plans are likely what their goals are. Not so much about the little fixes we have discussed on this forum. Hopefully I am wrong, but I am not holding my breath for anything bold to be done.
Downtown needs some quick fixes now, I mean yesterday. Then the long range stuff can follow.
I have some specific ideas that I really think will work. But I won't post them here and have them show up as a city idea six months from now, lol. Gotta get some credit, I think that is fair.
If there is the announcement of a new 'study' needed you can best be assured that nothing will happen soon enough to save what is left of small business Downtown.
If Downtown small business was dying a slow death before, then now (especially now that the SJTC is in full swing) my prognosis for Downtown has been downgraded to a somewhat quicker death.
Certainly the powers that be realize that by now. I guess they just don't feel it is their place to intervene or are afraid of the political fall out if they proposed doing anything BOLD (read: costs money).
The Everbank idea is an example of how they think. They want to hit a home run and not be bothered with a single or double.
I say, if they need to pay a company $1mil plus to move downtown then grants (not loans) for small business should be on the table too. The city has to have 'skin in the game'.
The reality is that we still have pretty much the same folks running the city departments as before so unless they are told to do something different they will not be doing anything different.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Hope I am proven wrong on all of the above. I will be first to admit same, happily.
I think it was a wonderful point to mention that particular council person. That particular council person must be isolated and blamed along with all of the others that are holding this project (downtown revitalization) back. Certain council member's concerns are for a few people and not for the greater good. I think the Czar would be great, but we must also isolate and 'blame' the villains of the vision. There are many great scenario of a great downtown. Having a child friendly disney esque 'only' Baptist church based downtown where alcohol and the young are not welcomed is on VERY NARROW and IGNORANT point over view. This particular point of view is not healthy and is discriminating to all the other social groups. I feel these poor leaders need to be brought to the public's notice. I would like to know who they are and maybe we could change there point of view or suggest they find another job- a job they might do much better at.
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee450/ronchamblin/fbc/FBCmap.jpg
This is the city block ratio as occupied and theoretically influenced by the FBC if we assume a two-block limit of influence. I have shown 11 blocks, although they may not be in the exact locations as shown.
I'll try again to get the photo complete.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 31, 2011, 05:43:11 PM
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee450/ronchamblin/fbc/FBCmap.jpg
This is the city block ratio as occupied and theoretically influenced by the FBC if we assume a two-block limit of influence. I have shown 11 blocks, although they may not be in the exact locations as shown.
Assuming no one would outright make a rule that favored FBC alone, one could only assume the one or two block limit would apply to every church in downtown. My guess is by the time someone figured out that radius there would be little to nothing left outside of it.
http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee450/ronchamblin/utf-8BSU1BRzAyMjguanBn.jpg
Hopefully this will show the entire photo. And yes, Lake, this is without the other churches.
I, for one, do not see why a church should have special influence outside the boundaries of their properties. Across the street should not be controlled simply because some uptight religious order says so and can exert influence because some of its members hold elective office.
Much is said about the separation of church and state but very little is done other than to knuckle under to a certain voting block.
This voting block can look in the mirror and know who is taking part in the demise of the downtown area.
The various churches however, are not the only cause of our downtown woes. Looking back at all the business moves you can see that many moves are because the bean counters thought that the grass was greener on the other side of the river and then down the road a bit, too. Certainly the green flowed, until the next pasture was cleared and planted with buildings and then the herd followed, leaving behind a plucked and dried up landscape.
Dwindling returns to the city coffers because the herd ran off caused the powers that be to attempt to keep the revenue coming by finding more ways to suck the life out of those remaining. Ill though out projects, started and abandoned when the intitial financing ran out or never properly completed, draconian legislation and back breaking rules for development and for small business efforts as well as warfare aimed at the consumer, such as parking rules, and the ever present "lets approve or even fund pet projects of the high and mighty", have drained the well dry.
Expensive study after study are gathering dust in odd corners of the city while still more are thought needed because - who knows? A recent study by an outside consultant was for our library system. It doesn't matter who actually paid for the study. What matters is we have a Library Director who is well versed in the field, attends and speaks at "forward thinking" conferences, yet is deemed unable to apply her extensive knowlege with out the handholding of an outside entity. We are wasting time and money on this sort of thing on a regular basis and we wonder why we, as a city, are so far behind the eight ball.
FBC has been downtown for 100 years. They were downtown when we had a vital downtown. I don't think FBC is the problem you imagine it to be.
I've lived here sine the 1960's. When I was young, downtown was still a vibrant shopping district. Lots of people took the bus to work, and shopped the stores around Hemming Plaza before boarding the bus to go home. I did myself. There wasn't a lot of housing downtown then either, but the buses were near the shopping, and all the major department stores had a downtown presence.
Personally, I think consolidation, JT Butler and the opening of more easily developed land via the "bridges to nowhere" (Buckman and Dames Point) along with the point made that with 850 square miles of most vacant land, and a political climate where you can't say no to someone who wants to build a million unneeded apartment units and strip malls of stores to service them is what killed downtown. That, and expensive and limited parking vs. acres of free parking in the suburbs.
There is another thread on Metro Jax with some low cost ideas to revitalize downtown. I hope the new city administration takes some of them to heart. While we continue to "study" the issue, and tear down building after building to build more city offices and courthouse buildings that don't contribute to the vitality of downtown, downtown continues to die a slow, painful death. The new federal courthouse sits on property once occupied by stores and a hotel. City Hall was once a major downtown department store, and the annex building (Universal Marion) also housed a department store, a revolving restaurant, and private enterprise offices. Where the new public library and the art museum sit, although they are great, once sat stores. People don't live in buildings such as these.
The City probably thought they were "saving downtown" by building such marble and limestone monuments away from the riverfront. In fact, it was said it was silly to have government buildings on valuable waterfront land (also "reclaimed" from businesses - warehouses, etc that were torn down during urban renewal.) Entire downtown neighborhoods were demolished that could have been revitalized and reclaimed through historic restoration. Instead we have stadiums and arenas, parking garages and parking lots.
Just sayin...shortsighted planning is what is causing the issue downtown. Not First Baptist Church. (And, no , I"m not a FBC member.)
Oh you agree that consolidated played a role in Jacksonville's urban decline, do you?
Well I'm honored to agree with both of you.
There are some interesting ideas here, but the idea that you could limit the First Baptist Church's influence to a two-block radius just isn't workable. The FBC's influence isn't just direct (eg the Senior Pastor getting up and saying "We support/disapprove of such-and-such a measure"). You might could put reins on that, but you'd never counter their indirect influence, such as the influence of businesspeople, politicians, and other prominent citizens who are congregants of FBC or are otherwise amenable to their views. And that's not to mention the even more indirect influence of the church's reputation. I recently spoke to a local venue owner who said she wouldn't even look downtown for space, because she didn't want to deal with First Baptist.
Placing a restriction on where the First Baptist Church can weigh in on an issue would do nothing to actually counter their influence beyond that area.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on August 01, 2011, 07:38:54 AM
FBC has been downtown for 100 years. They were downtown when we had a vital downtown. I don't think FBC is the problem you imagine it to be.
whilte they're definitely not the only problem--and possibly not even the main one--their political influence (and landownership, assuming those are even different things) has been steadily growing over that 100 years, with the result that they're a lot more poweful now than they were when any ov us were born.
Boy ….. looks like this thread has entered for a spell into the FBC subject. But …. Ralph W. - you’ve covered quite some territory, about seven or so aspects, most of which I find agreeable. The reason I suggested the two-block limit of influence for the FBC is because I do respect the church, its members, and their mission. Even though I am a non-church person, my respect urges me to suggest sufficient space for keeping any unsuitable non-church entities at bay, such as bars, pool halls, sleazy motels, and secular bookstores. The suggestion of the perhaps generous two-block limit of influence is so that any attempt to exceed it would be immediately obvious to all so that opposition could begin if desired. I agree with Tacachale that any possible influence or control does not have to be direct and obvious.
Debbie, I hope I didn’t convey that I thought the FBC was a problem regarding the downtown effort to revitalize. I was offering the fact of how large a part of the north bank city core is occupied by the FBC. I wanted to suggest that the scenario presents a "potential" condition of unreasonable control, by way of the probability that many members may be in political positions, and other positions of influence in the city.
As for me at the present time, I cannot say with conviction that the FBC is excessively influencing what goes on in the city core; and this, simply because I am ignorant. I do not know what goes on under the radar or behind the scenes. For all I know the church might be a real problem to downtown revitalization. But it may not.
Although I’ve heard of certain controlling efforts in the past, we would have to do research, or contact those who were there to discuss any unreasonable influences of the church over city issues that should favor all citizens, and not partial to the FBC, or its members. But even if there were in the past some attempts at unreasonable control, the current pastor or members may not be inclined to attempt control or influence.
Anyone suggesting that an entity as large as the FBC did not have some influence over the city would be out of touch with reality. The important question would be how much is the influence, and how much of it is good for the city core development, and how much is bad.
To move away from the FBC subject - we can talk all day, for years, about the problems, about solutions, about directions; but until there exists in this scenario an effective entity that has the capability to initiate “action†toward our goals, we will continue to have stagnation, or at least, very little progress. I’m not sure what is happening in the mayor’s office regarding the new group heading up the downtown initiative. Wouldn’t it be exciting if the mayor would assign a Czar or Dictator to force agreement, and action; simply telling the city council to back off for a spell? Dream on.
I will end with the opinion that a city is a secular entity, and must have the freedom to evolve according to the needs and wants of those who invest in, live in, work in, shop in, and visit the city. A church is a religious entity, given to controlling in small measure, its members, and perhaps its immediate environment. City = Freedom by nature. Church = Control by necessity. Really, they don’t mix well.
I only offer contemplations on possibilities; and this, to assist us, the independents in the city, the worker bees, to be on guard and ready to oppose those who may attempt to place restrictions on our freedoms as we attempt to create a downtown having the vibrancy we desire and deserve.
Problem I. D. â€" options for solution â€" agreement â€" action (We seldom get to the last two)